Setting aside a trust on the ground of mistake--In the Matter of the DSL Remuneration Trust: DSL Remuneration Trust [2007] JRC 251

This case concerned a remuneration trust which had been establishedby a company called DSL in April 2000. The beneficiaries ofthe Trust were named as the past, present and future employeesof DSL and their families. The shares in DSL were owned by acouple, Mr and Mrs L, who were also the two directors of DSL.The Trust assets comprised the proceeds of sale of the businessof DSL and its interest in two retail shops, and representedthe bulk of the assets of Mr and Mrs L and their family. The terms of the Trust prevented any outright distribution orpayments being made or any benefits     

Opening the door to enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments in Jersey: Brunei and Bandone v Fidelis and Others [2008] JRC152

The common law rule preventing the enforcement of foreign non-moneyjudgments (set out in Rule 35(1) of Dicey, Morris & Collins)("Dicey") has been amended in Jersey. The Courts now have adiscretion to enforce foreign non-monetary judgments, includingequitable orders such as specific performance, and injunctiveor declaratory relief, which are so vital to effective modernday remedies. In doing so, the Jersey Courts have adopted theapproach taken in the Canadian and Caymanian Courts.     

Exceeding powers of appointment: Re the Toland Trust, the Pennywise Trust and the Sequential Trust [2005] JRC 142

The general intention of the Toland Trust, a discretionary settlementgoverned by the law of Jersey, was expressed in a letter ofwishes that the immediate family of the settlor should benefit.A general power of appointment was given to the trustees. Considerable capital gains     

The last frontier: enforcing foreign judgments against offshore trusts after Pattni v Ali

A review of recent case law outlining the approach to enforcingforeign judgments in some common law jurisdictions. The cases,which were all decided over the last three years, in or on appealfrom, the Isle of Man, Jersey and the Cayman Islands, dealtwith orders for the transfer of shareholdings in companies incorporatedin the respective jurisdictions. It is the raison d'etre ofthe offshore trusts industry in each of those jurisdictionsthat they have each sought to put in place, some later thanothers, legislative packages which advertise certainty aboutthe circumstances in which foreign judgments will or will notbe enforced.     

美国法庭科学加强之路回顾(2009-2017) —以科学证据在诉讼中的采纳为对象

为应对法庭科学面临的有效性与可靠性危机,美国国家科学院携多个部门机构于2009年初发布了题为《美国法庭科学的加强之路》的报告(NAS报告).报告指出当前法庭科学原理/方法存在的不足及法庭科学实践中的欺诈等问题,并指出法庭一贯遵从法庭科学证据,未尽守门人职责.最后,NAS报告提出了改进法庭科学的建议.通过对法庭科学证据在诉讼中的采纳这一主题的案例分析,可以认为:NAS报告发布8年之后,法院采纳法庭科学证据的一贯做法并未发生根本性变化.换言之,NAS报告改革贯彻不力,对司法实践的影响极为有限,甚至可以忽略不计.NAS自身缺乏强制性、明确性及对抗式司法体制等是个中原因.现阶段NAS改革成果虽未获成功,但法庭科学加强之路仍需继续前行.未来深化法庭科学改革的举措可以从以下三个方面入手:重视法庭科学领域中诉讼参与主体的作用、发挥国家法庭科学委员会(NCFS)在未来深入推进法庭科学改革中的作用、认真对待联邦最高法院把法庭科学证据可采性纳入对质条款规制范畴的司法实践.     

论诉讼信托和讨债信托的效力——探讨《信托法》第11条第4项

我国《信托法》第11条第4项规定,专以诉讼或者讨债为目的设立的信托无效。然而,该条文是对日本《信托法》移植的结果,我国并没有禁止诉讼信托和讨债信托的理由。同时,该条文容易被规避且难以被认定,在司法实践中缺乏适用的空间。再者,该条文不仅与我国现行的诸多法律条文和制度产生冲突,而且与我国减少社会不良资产和增强我国公民法律意识、维权意识的目的相违背,故应当删除。事实上,诉讼信托和讨债信托不仅符合信托设立的要求,而且能使债权人、债务人受益,并起到减少讼累等有利效果,因此,应当承认诉讼信托和讨债信托在我国的合法地位。     

Analyzing the Performance of Risk Assessment Instruments: A Response to Vrieze and Grove (2007)

In a recent article, Vrieze and Grove (Law Hum Behav, doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9092-x , 2007) argue that, because of low recidivism base rates and limited predictive accuracy, an actuarial risk assessment instrument (ARAI) may produce decisions about sex offenders that are worse than simply predicting that no one will commit another sex offense. This article examines: (1) the construction and potential overfitting of ARAIs; (2) the meaning, value, and limitations of ROC areas; and (3) the relationship between the operating point that maximizes an ARAI's correct classifications and the legal criterion-"likely to reoffend"-used for sex offender designations. Contrary to what Vrieze and Grove suggest, ARAIs of modest accuracy yield probabilistic information that is more relevant to legal decision-making than just "betting the base rate."     

Intellectual property (IP) protection versus IP abuses: The recent development of Chinese IP abuse rules and recommendations for foreign technology-driven companies

This paper will focus on the recent development of the Chinese IP abuse legislation and its potential impact on IP protection and the operation of technology-driven foreign enterprises in China. Firstly, it will provide a brief overview of the TRIPS's requirements on IPR abuse and technology transfer, and the recent development of IP abuse laws at the domestic level, particularly in the US and the EC. Secondly, by drawing a comparison with similar laws in the US and the EC, this paper will critically examine the recent development of the Chinese laws regarding technology transfer and IP abuse prevention, including both the recently enacted Anti-Monopoly Law 2008 (AML) and other prior-AML regulations. Thirdly, the paper will examine both opportunities and potential risks these laws may bring to foreign IP holders/technology-driven companies when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impact of the IP-related provision in the AML. Recent development in antitrust litigation in which Microsoft is a party, including the recent anti-monopoly investigation against Microsoft in China, will also be examined. Lastly, it will provide some practical suggestions for foreign IP holders and technology-driven companies to operate in China, such as useful defences against potential IP abuse claims, and other strategies for flexibly applying the IP abuse rules and better participating in future IP abuse legislative process in China.     

Property and the Interests of Things: The Case of the Donative Trust

Within a liberal, ‘law of things’ understanding of property, the donative trust is seen as a species of gift. Control over trust property passes from the hands of settlors to beneficiaries, from owners to owners. Trust property, like all other property, is silent and passive, its fate determined by its owners. This article questions this understanding of the trust by showing how beneath the facade of ownership, the trust inverts the relation between owner and owned, person and thing. It analyses the relation that trustees, beneficiaries and settlors have to the trust property and argues that the role of each of these parties can be shown to consist in furthering the interests of the trust property rather than their own. It claims that this protects things from their owners at the same time as it ensures these owners’ ongoing care towards the things they own. This raises questions about the trust’s status within the institution of private property, justified as it is by the human autonomy it is said to enable.